Google
Custom Search

Sunday, April 19, 2009

Darwinism chronicles: Another Canadian writer gets it

Douglas Todd argues in '"Scientism' infects Darwinian debates: An unflinching belief that science can explain everything about evolution becomes its own ideology" (Vancouver Sun, April 4, 2009):
I think the proposal that humans evolved over billions of years from simpler life forms is a no-brainer.

However, I don't believe either Darwin or neo-Darwinists have yet devised a complete picture of how evolution happens, or what drives it.

I detected more than a hint of scientism when Walden declared that neo-Darwinism (which he called "the modern evolutionary synthesis") is the only theory accepted by respectable scientists.

Walden said four of the other scientific theories of evolution outlined by Phipps in his article in EnlightenNext journal, including biologist's Lynn Margulis theory of cooperation, are mere "additions" to neo-Darwinism.

Beyond that, Walden said the other seven proposed theories of evolution, some of which included philosophical and spiritual perspectives, are nothing more than "pseudo-scientific speculation." As such, he said, "they are nonsense."

In other words, Walden, whose viewpoint represents that of many scientists, appears to believe that any discussion of evolution that does not uphold chance as the only driving force is ridiculous.
Of course, Todd is right. The reason so many of us have risen up against Darwinism is not that we think natural selection never occurs but that we have never accepted - without evidence - the idea that it produces a high level of information (and that was Darwin's argument) And - as Mike Behe shows in Edge of Evolution, it doesn't.

It is amazing what people who get tenure at prestigious universities are willing to support without evidence. Including "chance" as a key explanation of high levels of information, which we must all know is completely untrue.

If you doubt that, try throwing the bag of Scrabble letters around the room and reassembling them randomly, and see what happens.

So I have no idea why Darwinism is the premier theory in biology.

And no theory in science is helped by becoming an ideology - which has clearly happened with Darwin's theory.

Read the rest of Doug Todd's perceptive comments here.

Hat tip: Wintery Knight

Find out why there is an intelligent design controversy:

Labels:

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Who links to me?